Quest Integrity USA, LLC v. A.Hak Industrial Services US, LLC

Filing 225

ORDER on status reports by Judge Richard A Jones. (RS)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8

QUEST INTEGRITY USA, LLC,

9
10
11
12

Plaintiff,
Case No. C14-1971-RAJ
v.
ORDER
A.HAK INDUSTRIAL SERVICES US,
LLC,
Defendant.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

This matter comes before the Court on the status reports of Plaintiff Quest
Integrity USA, LLC’s (“Quest”) and Defendant A.Hak Industrial Services US, LLC
(“A.Hak”). These reports concern the appropriate course of action following recent
decisions by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware concerning US Patent
No. 7,542,874, the patent at issue in the instant action. Quest Integrity USA, LLC v.
Clean Harbors Indus. Servs., Inc., --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. CV 14-1482-SLR, 2017 WL
1155381 (D. Del. Mar. 28, 2017), on reconsideration in part sub nom. Quest Integrity
Usa, LLC v. Cokebusters USA Inc., No. CV 14-1483-SLR, 2017 WL 1365227 (D. Del.
Apr. 7, 2017) (orders on summary judgment).
The parties agree that, as a consequence of these decisions, a Markman hearing
will be unnecessary. They disagree, however, as to the manner in which the litigation
should proceed. Quest requests a stay of this action pending its appeal of the Delaware
District Court’s orders. A.Hak requests permission to file a motion for summary
ORDER – 1

1

judgment on the issue of whether Quest’s patent claims are precluded by the Delaware

2

District Court’s decision under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. A.Hak further requests

3

that summary judgment briefing occur on an expedited schedule.

4

Having reviewed the parties’ status reports, the Court finds that a stay of the

5

instant action would be inappropriate. Tripati v. Henman, 857 F.2d 1366, 1367 (9th Cir.

6

1988); Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 170 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir.

7

1999) (“The law is well settled that the pendency of an appeal has no effect on the

8

finality or binding effect of a trial court’s holding. That rule is applicable to holdings of

9

patent invalidity as well.”) (citations and brackets omitted). Accordingly, the Court

10

adopts A.Hak’s position that this action should proceed to summary judgment on the

11

issue of collateral estoppel. The Court declines, however, to order briefing on an

12

expedited schedule.

13

DATED this 3rd day of May, 2017.

14
15

A

16
17

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 2